The Dartmouth Beacon

Along with his peers, Lucius has premonitions of where the country might turn in the next four years. "Foreign policy and global image will deteriorate greatly, and the gap between the poor and the rich will increase." He feels the most startling part of the election is that America has genuinely turned toward becoming more conservative and Republican, a trend confirmed in his mind after the 2002 midterm elections when the GOP took complete control of Congress.
Lucius has blunt advice for Democrats. "They need to shift their focus to remaining as moderate as possible. In a country that is obviously aligning Republican, they need to be socially sympathetic and fiscally conservative…that would be the party’s best chance."

Many other Democrats on campus agree. Krista Sande-Kerback ’05 feels that the Democrats must "clearly articulate a centrist platform to win the presidency in 2008." She is careful to expound her centrist position not as a retreat but rather as a revitalized strategy resting upon successful, less liberal candidates in the mold of Bill Clinton and Joe Lieberman.

Ben Taylor ‘07 feels it’s important for Democrats to field a moderate candidate for President in 2008. "He must be able to talk comfortably about moral issues, and needs to talk about things like health care, education, deficits, and tort reform as moral issues."

In the face of a more conservative America, perhaps these Dartmouth students have traipsed upon an indubitable truth of presidential politics: very liberal candidates cannot win elections (and indeed, are likely to fail miserably). Humphrey lost in 1968, McGovern in 1972, Mondale in 1984, Dukakis in 1988, Gore in 2000, and most recently in 2004, Kerry. The only Democrats able to pry the presidency away from the GOP in this time period have been the more moderate but inept Jimmy Carter and Clinton (who, remember, had the benefit of one H. Ross Perot draining votes away from the GOP in two elections).

Given that Nixon’s "silent majority" is now a thundering herd, in what can the Democrats place their hope? Only the option of ideological consistency remains. Fundamentally, Democrats must create a political philosophy as the foundation from which their policies naturally flow—and subsequently articulate this philosophy to voters. The philosophy, ideally, will be one that many Americans agree upon.

The Republicans have excelled in development and articulation of such a philosophy: smaller government, individual human freedom, and a belief in the virtues of tradition and innovation. Generally, Republican policies will reflect these themes, at least abstractly. And the Democrats—for what are they known? Big government? Iconoclasm? Atheism? Matt Slaine ’06, agrees that Democrats must focus on creating themes for their party. "They need to start planning now, cultivating leaders in the party to decide on a message and stick to it," he says. "Spend a few months figuring out exactly what the Democratic message should be—then spread that message as well as the reasons for the new DNC agenda."

Now, I will not take this opportunity to propose what new political philosophy or message the Democrats must adopt. But Democrats should realize some appropriately salient facts in this new political landscape. If they wonder why they keep losing elections, perhaps it’s because many Americans no longer view them as the party of the common man, as during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s day.

Some tidbits of strategy to keep the Democrats busy the next couple years:
Point one: Don’t be afraid to push pro-life candidates. The last time a pro-life Democrat jumped onto the national stage was in 1992 at the Democratic National Convention, when angry left-wingers booed former Pennsylvania Governor Rob Casey off the platform. The Republicans have had success in promoting pro-choice candidates (Arnold, Guliani, etc); why can’t the Democrats successfully push pro-lifers? If the party is so monolithic as to quell any dissent on the abortion issue, it faces a plunge into irrelevance should more Americans increase opposition to expanded abortion rights.

The issue of abortion has been shown to be the second-most accurate predictor of how a person will vote (after party affiliation); Democratic candidates would be myopic to disregard this voter bloc. And they will continue to lose in the so-called red states should they ignore Americans on the issue. Ryan McAnnally-Linz ’06 agrees somewhat. Though he is pro-choice, he feels many Democrats extol abortion as a positive end goal. To win, McAnnally-Linz notes, they must start using anti-abortion rhetoric even if they oppose overturning Roe v. Wade.

Point two: Make the term "party of the people" mean something. To this end, don’t be obstinately hostile toward something that many Americans embrace: religion. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and many other faiths are woven into the fabric of the American experience. Yet many Democrats have had a fervent opposition to even the slightest appearance of a government and religious interlacement. Why? The vast majority of Americans are religious and only 9% claim no religious affiliation, according to Gallup. If Democratic ideology abandons the religious, the displaced will take political refuge elsewhere.

Naturally, many are wary of any synergy between Church and State. The nation’s founders addressed this by constitutionally prohibiting a national established church. Establishment, as a legal term, means the financing of and official state affiliation with an organized Church. The First Amendment, oft-quoted by secularist liberals, states simply: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Other than that, there is no constitutional instruction for the government’s interaction with an organized church. Indeed, many of the individual U.S. states (Massachusetts and Rhode Island, among others.) had established state churches well into the 19th century. The amendment was constructed to prevent governmental restrictions on religious freedom—a cause that had sent many Europeans to the New World in the first place. The amendment did not aim to prevent religion’s entrance into the public sphere.

So where does this leave the Democrats today? A party woefully out of touch with many Americans on this issue. If the Democrats want to shed their “red-state” image as insular, elitist intellectuals, religion would be a great place to start.

But not all liberals agree. Lucas Nikkel '05 says he’s frustrated with an increasingly blurred separation of church and state, something he attributes to politicians on both sides of the aisle. He admits, "The majority of Americans seem to support [the politicians] in this endeavor."

Point three: Construct viable foreign policy alternatives to Republicans. September 11 caught both parties off guard, but the GOP had an unequivocal response: invade two hostile countries, quickly topple their governments, and stand ready to repeat elsewhere if necessary. Where were the Democrats on this? The ten Democratic primary candidates of 2003-04 had uncertain views on this, and vacillated even after ostensibly settling on positions. Dennis Kucinich advocated dropping vegan burger bombs on Iraqi children’s hospitals.

Clearly, this is not meant to exalt the foreign policy initiatives of the Bush Administration. But not a single Democratic candidate had a clear, viable policy alternative.

Point four: There’s a reason many conservative professors in academia are concentrated in Economics departments. Applying scientific and analytical (though not infallible) methods to economic issues tends to lead to conservative policy outcomes. Thus Republicans naturally have an advantage here.

Yes, this includes the environment too. One of the Democrats' biggest policy blunders is to attempt to isolate environmental issues from economic issues. Unsurprisingly, this approach has led to deifying earth and demonizing man in all circumstances. It is the foundation of radical groups like Greenpeace, organizations that dogmatically (and often violently) oppose any form of industrial development. This view has led politicians like Al Gore to declare that the internal combustion engine was worst invention ever.

Adamah Cole '06 organized a midnight candlelight vigil the night Kerry conceded. There, supporters of Kerry—many of whom had worked tirelessly to get out the vote—shed tears, read poetry, and stood in stunned silence, with nothing but a cold autumn wind to console them.

We're all students and future leaders of our country. As much as we disagree on things, we'll be the ones creating the policies that will guide our nation in the future. This isn't the 1960s. Radical leftists who choose to be combative find that they represent a shrinking slice of Americans. Reconciliation, it seems, requires Democrats to move closer to the beliefs of the median voter. Few doubt this would help both parties and the political landscape.

Republicans do have image and platform consistency problems. But lately they seem able to win elections despite them.

Perhaps liberals have reason to call Bush a "cowboy president." But what many liberals don't realize is that throughout vast expanses of America the term "cowboy" represents honor, valor, and courage—far from derisive.